I think that being number 1 should strictly be based on achievement. And Vilas' achievements outshone Borg that year. 3 Grand Slam finals - winning 2. (Yes, I know the Australian was light, but still an achievement).

Borg obviously was the better player - the head to head establishes that, but he just didn't have the results that Vilas had.

Vilas - 18 Tournament wins that year (16 ATP verified, 2 smaller events). Vilas' greatest win of course was the US Open over Connors. That is an equal win to Borg's winning Wimbledon (also over Connors). Hence looking at the rest of Borg's achievements vs the rest of Vilas' achievements - Vilas wins.

Have no idea how Connors got to be number 1 on the computer, as much of a Connors fan I am, his tournament wins were nothing like Vilas' during the year.

It's absurd to think that Borg could be the n°1, and absurd to say "if he played Roland-Garros", "if he wasn't sick at the US Open" .... It's absurd to say always "if" ! Only the facts are important. Borg beated Vilas 3 times this year, but compare the results ! No doubt possible : Vilas is n°1 this year, and the ATP is ridiculous when he refuses to recognize the mistake and to say that Vilas was n°1.

It's absurd to think that Borg could be the n°1, and absurd to say "if he played Roland-Garros", "if he wasn't sick at the US Open" .... It's absurd to say always "if" ! Only the facts are important. Borg beated Vilas 3 times this year, but compare the results ! No doubt possible : Vilas is n°1 this year, and the ATP is ridiculous when he refuses to recognize the mistake and to say that Vilas was n°1.

I think that being number 1 should strictly be based on achievement. And Vilas' achievements outshone Borg that year. 3 Grand Slam finals - winning 2. (Yes, I know the Australian was light, but still an achievement).

Borg obviously was the better player - the head to head establishes that, but he just didn't have the results that Vilas had.

Vilas - 18 Tournament wins that year (16 ATP verified, 2 smaller events). Vilas' greatest win of course was the US Open over Connors. That is an equal win to Borg's winning Wimbledon (also over Connors). Hence looking at the rest of Borg's achievements vs the rest of Vilas' achievements - Vilas wins.

Have no idea how Connors got to be number 1 on the computer, as much of a Connors fan I am, his tournament wins were nothing like Vilas' during the year.

Click to expand...

I was a Borg fan, and remember that at the time, I felt Borg deserved #1. But revisiting the year, I would rate Vilas as #1.

I don't understand how the ATP computer calculated rankings back then. It seemed weird that at the US Open, Vilas was seeded #4, behind Brian Gottfried. Vilas destroyed Gottfried in the French finals, and had an overall better record up to the Open. Vilas also finished #4 in 1976. So it shows you there were some definite quirks about the ATP ranking system back then.

I do think that based on overall record Vilas gets the nod over Borg, with Cononrs third. If you did count the Colgate Masters for the 1977 season - played in January 1978 - as part of the rankings season, even though Connors won the event, and Borg beat Vilas in the semis, I think Vilas epic RR win over Connors was in a sense a reason for him to clinch #1. The win was on a surface that favored Connors. and while Jimmy beat Bjorn in the finals, it was his only big win of the year. So it really only salvaged the year for Connors, not clinch #1 for Connors. and Borg's failure to win that event is another reason that I think Vilas gets the edge.

I do think that based on overall record Vilas gets the nod over Borg, with Cononrs third. If you did count the Colgate Masters for the 1977 season - played in January 1978 - as part of the rankings season, even though Connors won the event, and Borg beat Vilas in the semis, I think Vilas epic RR win over Connors was in a sense a reason for him to clinch #1. The win was on a surface that favored Connors. and while Jimmy beat Bjorn in the finals, it was his only big win of the year. So it really only salvaged the year for Connors, not clinch #1 for Connors. and Borg's failure to win that event is another reason that I think Vilas gets the edge.

Click to expand...

However Vilas lost to Borg in the semi and thus finished behind Borg at the Masters.

Borg, I agree, would have had a better case had he won the Masters. But he definitely proved himself to be the better player on carpet - if not at the Masters, then definitely with his sterling fall stretch on the surface.

Connors deserves more credit for this year. He made the finals of both majors, unlike the other two players. He won the masters - clearly a top-four event. He was also victorious at Dallas, which was still a very respected event. No clay titles though - before the US Open, he lost to Orantes in Indianapolis on har-tru. So mostly carpet/hard - although a near-win in Wimbledon.

Borg's year is the most versatile, which is why I prefer it to the other three. Clay/Grass/Carpet - success on all three. The problem is that most folks evaluate his year based on contemporary standards, which I think is a huge fallacy and ignores context.

- most dogs are hairy
- starbucks coffee cups are recyclable
- i'm typing out this post at work

How do these facts relate to one another? They don't, aside from the fact I just typed them up in a quasi-random manner.

Do you think Jan Kodes was a better clay courter than Rod Laver in 1971?

Click to expand...

Kodes won the French Open ! It's absurd to say "if Laver played the French this year, he won" ! Who knows ? So, today, you can say that Federer won a lot of times Wimbledon, but only because Sampras doesn't play anymore : you can say "if Sampras played, he won", but, excuse me, it's absurd.
And, finally, the question is not : was Kodes a better clay player than Laver in 1971 ? The question is : who won the French in 1971 ? And for 1977, the question is not : who was the best player in 1977 ? But : who has the best results in 1977 ? And it's Vilas. So Vilas is n°1.

Kodes won the French Open ! It's absurd to say "if Laver played the French this year, he won" ! Who knows ? So, today, you can say that Federer won a lot of times Wimbledon, but only because Sampras doesn't play anymore : you can say "if Sampras played, he won", but, excuse me, it's absurd.
And, finally, the question is not : was Kodes a better clay player than Laver in 1971 ? The question is : who won the French in 1971 ? And for 1977, the question is not : who was the best player in 1977 ? But : who has the best results in 1977 ? And it's Vilas. So Vilas is n°1.

Click to expand...

Uh-huh. So Jan Kodes had better results on clay in 1971 because he won a depleted French Open, while Laver won a much deeper event in Rome?

You need to sit down and think this over a bit.

The Sampras analogy is funny. Stupid, but funny.

P.S. Speaking of Jan Kodes - he must have been a much better player than Stan Smith in 1973. I mean, he won Wimbledon, while Stan Smith (who didn't play in it) didn't. Thanks for clearing that up for everyone.

You're clearly not interested in context, therefore it doesn't matter who plays in an event and who doesn't. It doesn't matter how well attended the event is and whether there are circumstances that prevent players from participating in good faith. Throw all of that out the window. Just go with the bare facts.

You're clearly not interested in context, therefore it doesn't matter who plays in an event and who doesn't. It doesn't matter how well attended the event is and whether there are circumstances that prevent players from participating in good faith. Throw all of that out the window. Just go with the bare facts.

Click to expand...

And since when an objective ranking cares about context? Ranking only care about those bare facts.

Context means nothing. If Borg didn't play the FO, how does tha diminishes Vilas' achievements, ranking-wise?

Who was the best player that year? probably Borg. Who deserved the #1 the most? Most likely Vilas.

Click to expand...

Agreed. As a Sampras fan it would have been 7 straight years at #1 if he didn;t miss Aus and US Open in 1999... but he did!!!!!! Best player Jan 1st, 1999 to Dec 31st, 1999, was Agassi. I'd still favour Pete 1999 over Dre 1999, but the player who had the best year was Agassi.

Same in 1977. From Jan 1st, 1977 to Dec 31st, 1977, Vilas was the best player. Would I favour Borg over him in a fair one?? Probably. Like I said before if Borg went to RG, thngs may have been different, but he didn't. So 1977 belongs to Vilas.

Agreed. As a Sampras fan it would have been 7 straight years at #1 if he didn;t miss Aus and US Open in 1999... but he did!!!!!! Best player Jan 1st, 1999 to Dec 31st, 1999, was Agassi. I'd still favour Pete 1999 over Dre 1999, but the player who had the best year was Agassi.

Same in 1977. From Jan 1st, 1977 to Dec 31st, 1977, Vilas was the best player. Would I favour Borg over him in a fair one?? Probably. Like I said before if Borg went to RG, thngs may have been different, but he didn't. So 1977 belongs to Vilas.

Click to expand...

Not the same thing and I've already explained why. Borg had a good reason. Sampras was injured.

maybe they should start inscribing some choice contextual details beside the winner's name on the trophy. however we will need a bigger trophy, and beyond that, who makes the decision as to which circumstances surrounding the victory are most relevant? factoring in the 'butterfly effect,' this is going to get complicated, gentlemen.

maybe they should start inscribing some choice contextual details beside the winner's name on the trophy. however we will need a bigger trophy, and beyond that, who makes the decision as to which circumstances surrounding the victory are most relevant? factoring in the 'butterfly effect,' this is going to get complicated, gentlemen.

Click to expand...

We're not debating who the winner of the trophy is. I can't believe I have to explain such obvious things.

Not the same thing and I've already explained why. Borg had a good reason. Sampras was injured.

Click to expand...

Whatever the reason Vilas 1977 trumped Borg's. It has nothing to do with who's a better player, who would have done what, or if things would have been different. From January 1st, 1977 to December 31st, 1977 nobody put up better #'s than Vilas.

Like I said I'd probably take Borg 1977 over Vilas 1977 in a fair one. But overall those 365 days, no one did it better than Vilas. Borg may not have had the chance to, granted, but Vilas did it.

Whatever the reason Vilas 1977 trumped Borg's. It has nothing to do with who's a better player, who would have done what, or if things would have been different. From January 1st, 1977 to December 31st, 1977 nobody put up better #'s than Vilas.

Like I said I'd probably take Borg 1977 over Vilas 1977 in a fair one. But overall those 365 days, no one did it better than Vilas. Borg may not have had the chance to, granted, but Vilas did it.

Like your Koodes-Smith 1973 debate. Kodes was better than Smith at SW19 based on the fact he's better than someone who didn't show up. Champ > DNP everytime. Doesn't mean he's above Smith but he produced a better result.

1999 US Open: Pioline SF > Pete's DNP. Does that mean Pioline is above Pete?? But his result was better. Vilas' end result were better than Borg's that year. Not saying he's better or beats Borg. POY is who does the best over those 365 days, and in 1977 it was Vilas.

Like your Koodes-Smith 1973 debate. Kodes was better than Smith at SW19 based on the fact he's better than someone who didn't show up. Champ > DNP everytime. Doesn't mean he's above Smith but he produced a better result.

Click to expand...

A better result at a depleted tournament? It's silly logic. Do you even know why Smith didn't show up? You know, context? How much weight do you give to Johan Kriek's Australians?

1999 US Open: Pioline SF > Pete's DNP. Does that mean Pioline is above Pete?? But his result was better. Vilas' end result were better than Borg's that year. Not saying he's better or beats Borg. POY is who does the best over those 365 days, and in 1977 it was Vilas.

Click to expand...

I've already explained this. Sampras was injured. When you're injured, you're not fit to play and therefore you're not better. Injuries are part of the game.

Borg was not injured and was better than Vilas. And results show it. You're giving the French Open undeserved weight based on a contemporary perception of its importance.

A better result at a depleted tournament? It's silly logic. Do you even know why Smith didn't show up? You know, context? How much weight do you give to Johan Kriek's Australians?

I've already explained this. Sampras was injured. When you're injured, you're not fit to play and therefore you're not better. Injuries are part of the game.

Borg was not injured and was better than Vilas. And results show it. You're giving the French Open undeserved weight based on a contemporary perception of its importance.

Click to expand...

Stan Smith didn't show up out of protest. So how do you explain not showing up is better than a title?? Yes the tournament may have been depleted, and I clearly said if Borg had gone to RG, things may have been different, But if my mother was my aunt, my sister would be my cousins.

Borg was better than Vilas, I also said I'd take Borg 1977 over Vilas 1977 in a fair one did I not??? But over those 365 days, Borg's results were not superior to Vilas. I mean are you conna tell me the Boxer Of The Year 1968 was Muhammed Ali?? Sure as hell wasn't from jail. If he was free, he probably would have been but he wasn't. Aren't we giving the champ undesreved wight seeing how they never beat the champ, he was stripped??

There's a difference between being "the best" and being "player of the year".

Stan Smith didn't show up out of protest. So how do you explain not showing up is better than a title?? Yes the tournament may have been depleted, and I clearly said if Borg had gone to RG, things may have been different, But if my mother was my aunt, my sister would be my cousins.

Click to expand...

Reality of the times. Smith protested and so did other players.

Borg's case is even more understandable. He didn't protest. He just chose WTT over RG. A reasonable choice done by others.

Borg was better than Vilas, I also said I'd take Borg 1977 over Vilas 1977 in a fair one did I not??? But over those 365 days, Borg's results were not superior to Vilas. I mean are you conna tell me the Boxer Of The Year 1968 was Muhammed Ali?? Sure as hell wasn't from jail. If he was free, he probably would have been but he wasn't. Aren't we giving the champ undesreved wight seeing how they never beat the champ, he was stripped??

Click to expand...

I don't know enough about Ali's year, but I can see from Borg's year that he was 22-0 on red clay, including two wins over Vilas, which leads me to conclude that he was superior to Vilas on that surface.

There's a difference between being "the best" and being "player of the year".

Borg's case is even more understandable. He didn't protest. He just chose WTT over RG. A reasonable choice done by others.

I don't know enough about Ali's year, but I can see from Borg's year that he was 22-0 on red clay, including two wins over Vilas, which leads me to conclude that he was superior to Vilas on that surface.

I don't see how Vilas is either.

Click to expand...

Again your missing the point. I don't begrudge Borg for choosing WTT over the ATP, and I never once said Borg would not have. The fact is he didn't not that he couldn't. Ali could have beaten any boxer in in 1968, he was the best. But Boxer/Player Of The Year means going out and doing it. Borg didn't. Not saying he couldn't, he just didn't, for whatever reason.

Sure, majors count but these things aren't fixed. Today majors are "sacred", because we can expect everyone to attend them. And when players do not then it is never for a good reason. In the 1970s, there were circumstances (such as WTT) that prevented players from showing up at majors. You probably think Jan Kodes was a better player than Rod Laver in 1970 because he won a major and Laver did not?

Fast forward to 2009 and there's no reasonable excuse for a player missing a major. The tour is extremely standardized and has been precisely so for years. There's no WTT in the way. No parallel tours. Very clear cut. Herein we can apply a simple "quantitative" formula.

Click to expand...

CyBorg, I'm quoting these posts of yours from another thread because they've highlighted some key differences between the early Open Era and today. Just as an amateur student of history (one of my favorite subjects), there are a few things that you're doing which I really appreciate: 1) Context is everything; 2) don't judge the past by today's standards; 3) don't reduce everything to numbers.

Since the tour has become standardized, everything now revolves around major counts. With Federer and Sampras so close to each other in their major titles, there's even more emphasis on it (there seems to be a hot fever around anything to do with Federer, Sampras, and major counts). And going forward, so long as the tour remains as it is today, I see no problem with the emphasis on majors. Going forward. But judging 1971 or 1977, or any other past year, you have no choice but to leave aside our thinking today and ask what people were thinking then. I've read your posts on 1977 before but I'm just beginning to understand your emphasis on that point.

Often I see the whole question of 1977 reduced to the simple argument that Borg did not show up, while Vilas did. Usually that refers to the French Open. And today that makes sense: if you miss RG today, you've missed the premier claycourt event of the year, no questions asked, nothing more to be said. In essence you've avoided the biggest test.

I know there's a case to be made that the Masters series events are harder to win; but seriously, missing RG is too much; if you duck a major today, or can't make it because of injury, you're missing too much.

Yet you point out that Vilas avoided non-clay events in 1977, which immediately puts a twist on the argument that Vilas "showed up" and proved himself #1 while Borg "did not show up" and avoided the big competition.

(I think you've said before that Vilas also avoided Borg when he could during that season? or during his record streak?)

This is not to say that Borg is #1 for the year. At the moment actually, without carefully studying the year, I'd tend to lean toward co-#1's. I'm not sure why polls never include that option. We have a bit of a "king of the hill" mentality (a GOAT mentality; every post seems to be a defense of a particular player and nothing more; very few posters seem interested in any other issues, though at least this Former Players forum has a greater share of the interesting posters). But if we drop the need to name one player as king over the roost, it's possible to think of 1977 as a year in which all the top players were missing something important in their accomplishments, which means that they might have to share the POY honors.

1977 aside, I appreciate a lot of what you're emphasizing. Like you I'm a Borg fan, but in everything I've studied I've always been taught that context is everything, that nothing can be boiled down to numbers, and that you can't do history by judging the past through today's lenses. Those are just attitudes I've held about far more important things than tennis and I'm glad to run across someone who operates the same way.

But I'm not optimistic about how 1977 will be studied. Now that the tour is standardized a lot of the early Open Era may be forgotten -- whatever part does not resemble today's.

Again your missing the point. I don't begrudge Borg for choosing WTT over the ATP, and I never once said Borg would not have. The fact is he didn't not that he couldn't. Ali could have beaten any boxer in in 1968, he was the best. But Boxer/Player Of The Year means going out and doing it. Borg didn't. Not saying he couldn't, he just didn't, for whatever reason.

CyBorg, I'm quoting these posts of yours from another thread because they've highlighted some key differences between the early Open Era and today. Just as an amateur student of history (one of my favorite subjects), there are a few things that you're doing which I really appreciate: 1) Context is everything; 2) don't judge the past by today's standards; 3) don't reduce everything to numbers.

Since the tour has become standardized, everything now revolves around major counts. With Federer and Sampras so close to each other in their major titles, there's even more emphasis on it (there seems to be a hot fever around anything to do with Federer, Sampras, and major counts). And going forward, so long as the tour remains as it is today, I see no problem with the emphasis on majors. Going forward. But judging 1971 or 1977, or any other past year, you have no choice but to leave aside our thinking today and ask what people were thinking then. I've read your posts on 1977 before but I'm just beginning to understand your emphasis on that point.

Often I see the whole question of 1977 reduced to the simple argument that Borg did not show up, while Vilas did. Usually that refers to the French Open. And today that makes sense: if you miss RG today, you've missed the premier claycourt event of the year, no questions asked, nothing more to be said. In essence you've avoided the biggest test.

I know there's a case to be made that the Masters series events are harder to win; but seriously, missing RG is too much; if you duck a major today, or can't make it because of injury, you're missing too much.

Yet you point out that Vilas avoided non-clay events in 1977, which immediately puts a twist on the argument that Vilas "showed up" and proved himself #1 while Borg "did not show up" and avoided the big competition.

(I think you've said before that Vilas also avoided Borg when he could during that season? or during his record streak?)

This is not to say that Borg is #1 for the year. At the moment actually, without carefully studying the year, I'd tend to lean toward co-#1's. I'm not sure why polls never include that option. We have a bit of a "king of the hill" mentality (a GOAT mentality; every post seems to be a defense of a particular player and nothing more; very few posters seem interested in any other issues, though at least this Former Players forum has a greater share of the interesting posters). But if we drop the need to name one player as king over the roost, it's possible to think of 1977 as a year in which all the top players were missing something important in their accomplishments, which means that they might have to share the POY honors.

1977 aside, I appreciate a lot of what you're emphasizing. Like you I'm a Borg fan, but in everything I've studied I've always been taught that context is everything, that nothing can be boiled down to numbers, and that you can't do history by judging the past through today's lenses. Those are just attitudes I've held about far more important things than tennis and I'm glad to run across someone who operates the same way.

But I'm not optimistic about how 1977 will be studied. Now that the tour is standardized a lot of the early Open Era may be forgotten -- whatever part does not resemble today's.

Click to expand...

Excellent post and the insight is much appreciated.

I'm actually very open to regarding these guys (perhaps even with Connors) as co-#1s. All three have some evident gaps to their record in 1977.

This is first real debateable point you've made to me. This is something I can see. Now the question beomes.... is how much wieght is given to WTT tournaments, and how much to ATP?? Which holds more weight??

Also did Borg do the equivalent in WTT that he would have needed to do to have done on the ATP to be player of the year?? Everybody, I summize, will have their own take on what's what.

This is first real debateable point you've made to me. This is something I can see. Now the question beomes.... is how much wieght is given to WTT tournaments, and how much to ATP?? Which holds more weight??

Also did Borg do the equivalent in WTT that he would have needed to do to have done on the ATP to be player of the year?? Everybody, I summize, will have their own take on what's what.

Click to expand...

I can tell you which one payed better. WTT was obviously respected and important at the time. And RG was evidently less important as a result.

I can tell you which one payed better. WTT was obviously respected and important at the time. And RG was evidently less important as a result.

Also why ignore the Monte Carlo and Nice results?

Click to expand...

I didn't ignore them. Vilas put up some absolutely disgusting #'s in 1977. Now like I've said time and time again, which you seem to ignore, if Borg hadn't chosen WTT, things quite possibly would have been different. You keep harping on with Borg this, and Borg that, why?? How many times have I said I would more than likely take Borg 1977 over Vlas 1977 in fair one. Do you what that means???

As to who had the better year in 1977, the stats show Vilas. the results show Vilas. Now if Borg's accomplishments on the WTT match up or superceed Vilas' on the ATP, that I can consider it. If Vilas ATP #'s (or ATP in general) don't stack up, all fall short to what the WTT, I would definitely consider that.

That's why I said the "WTT vs ATP" point was something that holds weight and needs to be looked at. But then again too many people will have too many discrepancies with their views. You say this, but somebody will probaly say that. That's why I said that point you made needs be looked at.